Share This

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Sulu sultanate, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram gave Datuk Seri title


PETALING JAYA: Muhammad Ridhwan Sulaiman (pic right) carries a “Datuk Seri” title given to him by the so-called Sulu sultanate, a claimant to the controversial throne said.

Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram said he bestowed the title upon Muhammad Ridhwan after his “coronation” on Sept 16 last year.

“I conferred the title to him as an honour because he has helped my people,” Muedzul said from Manila yesterday.

He said Muhammad Ridhwan gave money generously to support his programmes to alleviate poverty among his people, including for hospitalisation and religious activities.

“To our people, he is like a hero. He was a bridge between Malaysia and the Suluk,” added Muedzul, who lives on Sulu island.

He said he didn't not agree with the actions of Jamalul Kiram III, another claimant to the Sulu throne, who sent armed men to Sabah to reclaim it as their territory.

Muhammad Ridhwan, 48, is president of the Al-Ehsan Islamiah charity foundation based in Penang.

He has been detained under the Security Ordinance and Security Measures Act 2012 after turning himself in to police over the incursions in Sabah.

In BUTTERWORTH, Muhammad Ridhwan's family said he did not support terrorists, insisting his dealings with Muedzul were “purely business”.

Nur Rina Abdullah, 39, said her husband, a Kubang Pasu Umno division member, got to know the self-styled sultan six months ago.

“My husband was looking for investment opportunities for Al-Ehsan Islamiah. So, he wanted to explore the virgin coconut oil business and decided to tap its potential in Sulu Island, which has ample supply of coconuts,” she said at their home in Taman Inderawasih in Prai yesterday.

She said her husband, a Hindu known as Ravindran Subramaniam Nair before his father and their entire family converted to Islam about 20 years ago, once ran a legal firm in Kuala Lumpur.

Nur Rina, a Catholic before she embraced Islam, said they later moved to Penang and started a banana leaf restaurant in Bandar Baru Air Itam on the island.

She said the venture failed and Muhammad Ridhwan, who was born in Taiping, set up another legal firm in George Town in 2008.

She joined him as a field officer while their son Muhammad Danish Nair, 22, was the firm's customer service officer.

The couple have four other children, with the youngest aged 14.

“We understand the police need to conduct necessary investigations, but we pray that he will be released soon,” she said.

- Sources: The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Sultan of Sulu, who is the true and legitimate?

Sultan Muhammad Fuad A. Kiram I (The last son of HM Sultan Esmail E. Kiram I - Sultan of Sulu 1947 to 1973) or Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram (son of  Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram - 34th Sultan of Sulu 1974 - 1986)
 
Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram 35th Sultan of Sulu Son of  Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram 34th Sultan of Sulu (1974 - 1986)
Sultan of Sulu - Sultan Jamalul Kiram II (1894-1936).
 
Sultan of Sulu, Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Jamalul Kiram II (1893-1936) was recognized worldwide. During his long reign he signed several treaties with different nations.  
 Sultan of Sulu, Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Jamalul Kiram II
Unfortunately he has no offspring of his own. He passed on his authority to his youngest brother Al-marhum Sultan Mawallil Wasit Kiram (1936).

Al-marhum Sultan Mawallil Wasit Kiram was Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's great grandfather and Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Jamalul Kiram II was his great grand uncle.

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram is the grandson of the 33rd Sultan of Sulu, Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I (1950-1973)
  
Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I has granted authority to Philippine government under the administration of President Diosdado Macapagal on 12th of September 1962 and of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1969.

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's mother Dayang-Dayang Farida Tan-Kiram was the first wife of his father.
Half tausug and half Chinese, she was commonly known as the Princess of Sulu.
His father's second wife is Dayang-Dayang Merriam Tanglao-Kiram, commonly known as the Princess of the South.
 
Al-marhum Sultan Moh. Mahakuttah A. Kiram, 34th Sultan of Sulu had seven children:

1. Dayang-Dayang Zuharra T.Kiram
2. Dayang-Dayang Dinwasa T. Kiram Delos Santos
3. Raja Muda Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram
4. Datu Yldon Tan Kiram
5. Dayang-Dayang Nur Mahal T. Kiram
6. Dayang-Dayang Ayesha T. Kiram
7. Dayang-Dayang Tanya Rowena T. Kiram -Tahil
 
Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram is married with H.M. Dayang-Dayang Mellany S. Kiram. They have seven children.

1. Raja Muda Moh. Ehsn S. Kiram
2. Datu Nizamuddin S. Kiram
3. Dayang-Dayang Rahela S. Kiram
4. Datu Jihad S. Kiram
5. Datu Mujahid S. Kiram
6. Dayang-Dayang Redha S. Kiram
7. Datu Mahakuttah S. Kiram
 
Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram studied Islam in Lahore, Pakistan (1995-1996). He got a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree from AE College, Zamboanga. He also served the local community as a government official. At present he is involved as a civil society leader in the Province of Sulu which opposes the US-RP Balikatan Exercises of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
 
Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram was born in Jolo. Jolo was once the capital of a maritime empire that traded with the great  Empire of China and with other kingdoms in Southeast Asia. 

As Raja Muda of Sulu, the Sultanate is Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram birthright. There is a sacred bond between the Sultan and his people, the Rayaat, that is handed down from generation to generation between the royal family and trusted people who live in Sabah and in the Sulu Archipelago.

The Sulu Archipelago includes Palawan, Sabah, Zamboanga Peninsula, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, the Sprately islands and the Balambagan group of islands.  Historically it was part of  Nusantara. According to oral history and traditions, Sulu has been independent and sovereign centuries before the birth of the Republic of Philippines. Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's ancestors contracted treaties with powerful nations and defended Sulu rights to freedom in traditional way of life against invaders.

But from the start of the Philippine Republic which lumped Sulu with the rest of the islands under the name Philippine Archipelago, Sulu has experienced devastation, death and downfall.

The Macaski Judgment over the Sabah issue in 1939 was a blow to the Sulu Sultanate. Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's grandfather, Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I was one of the recipients of that judgment. The Macaski settlement divided Sulu into divisions

Sabah became a private property and the heirs of the Sultan were divided among themselves. One group wanted Sabah for sale while another group wanted to take it back.

When Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's  grandfather, Sultan Moh. Esmail E. Kiram I, granted authority to the Philippine government through Pres. Diosdado Macapagal and Pres. Ferdinand Marcos, it was with the hope that the Philippine government would become a caretaker of the domain of the Sulu Sultanate to help the Muslims in this archipelago. This transfer of sovereign authority carried with these obligations and agreements.

As Sulu political power is declined, the unity of the Tausug people in the whole archipelago also has weakened. The economic life of the whole region was brought to the lowest level. Then came the Muslim rebellion and the civil war in 1974 that devastated the whole Sulu. Hundreds of thousands innocent people died.
 
In 1974 Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram's  father was installed as the Sultan of Sulu. His father's twelve year reign started the slow but steady recovery of Sulu people

However after his death (February 16, 1986) there were several claimants made by pretenders (royals and non-royals) to the title of Sultan.

During the coronation process of Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram as the 35th Sultan of Sulu

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram, 35th Sultan of Sulu, together with 
Mellany S. Kiram and Crown Prince Moh. Ehsn S. Kiram.

Sultan Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram has waited  twenty-two years for the official recognition to succeed his father.

Source :  Royal Sultanate of Sulu Facebook

(Joined Facebook on 12th May 2011)

**********************************************************

Sultan Muhammad Fuad A. Kiram I 
The 35th Reigning Sultan of Sulu 
 The last son of HM Sultan Esmail E. Kiram I 
(Sultan of Sulu 1947 to 1973)
Sultan Muhammad Fuad A. Kiram I 
Indonesia Minister of Religious Affairs granted the rank and tittle of hereditary knighthood 
by Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I
(2nd December 2011)

Chancellor of Al Zaytun granted the rank and tittle of hereditary knighthood 
by Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I
(Al Zaytun is the biggest Islamic boarding school in Indonesia)
  ( 27th November 2011)
Source :  

The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah Facebook
 (joined Facebook on 7th May 2011)

Related posts:

Related articles:

Monday, April 1, 2013

Will the lessons be learnt from the financial crisis in Cyprus?

This time, it is Cyprus’ turn to face a bitter financial crisis as bank depositors get hit and capital controls are imposed. 


Demonstrators in Athens. The roots of the eurozone crisis lie in its unwillingness to uphold fiscal discipline. Photograph: Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP/Getty Images



THE financial crisis in Cyprus has again shown that over-dependence on the financial sector and an unregulated and liberalised financial system can cause havoc to an economy.

The particular manner in which a financial crisis manifests itself may be different from country to country, depending on the ways the country became financially over-reliant or over-liberalised, and also on how ever-changing external conditions affect the country.

For the past two weeks, Cyprus hit the headlines because of the rapid twists and turns of its crisis, the terms of the bailout it negotiated with its European and IMF creditors, the hit that bank depositors are forced to take, and finally the “capital controls” that the government has imposed to prevent bank runs and capital flight out of the country.

Depositors with more than 100,000 (RM396,000) could lose more than half their savings.

Bank customers can only withdraw 300 (RM1,189) daily; cashing of cheques is prohibited; transfers of funds to accounts held abroad or in other credit institutions are prohibited; transfers due to trade transactions above 5,000 (RM19,832) a day require central bank permission; the use of credit cards overseas is restricted to 5,000 (RM19,832) per account a month; and travellers can only take out 1,000 (RM3,960) or equivalent in foreign currency per trip.

These capital controls, announced on March 28, were highlighted in the media as the first to be imposed by a country belonging to the European Union.

It was like the slaying of a “sacred cow”, because the freedom to move funds out of and into the European countries had been treated almost like a human right.

But it is this total freedom for the flow of funds that has contributed or even been ultimately responsible for so many financial crises in so many countries in the past few decades.

This liberalised system of capital flows enables residents to place their funds abroad or to purchase foreign assets like bonds and shares.

It also enables foreigners to bring in funds either for short-term speculation and investment or longer-term investment and savings.

After the Second World War, capital controls were the rule: flows of funds to and from abroad were mainly restricted to activities linked to the real economy of trade, direct investments and travel.

From the mid-1970s, the liberalisation of capital flows took place in the rich economies and gradually spread to many developing countries.

The finance ministers of Brazil and of other developing countries have been protesting against the easy-money policies in rich countries that have had adverse effects on emerging economies.

When the internal or external situation changes and investor perception changes with it, the inflow of funds turns into its opposite.

The sudden outflow of funds, and depreciation of the currency, can then cause an even more devastating effect on the economy.

In the 1997-99 crisis, East Asian countries that had over-liberalised their financial system found that local banks and companies had borrowed heavily in US dollars.

When their currencies depreciated, many of the borrowers could not service their loans.

The countries’ foreign reserves dropped to danger levels, forcing them to go to the IMF for bailout loans.

Malaysia fortunately had some control over the amount local companies could borrow from abroad, which prevented it from falling into an external debt crisis.

The imposition of capital controls over outflows in September 1998 enabled Malaysia to avoid a financial crisis requiring an IMF bailout.

The immediate response from the IMF and the Western establishment was that the capital controls would destroy the Malaysian economy.

Today, the economic orthodoxy has changed, and most analysts including at the IMF give credit to Malaysia for the capital controls.

The Malaysian controls included a temporary ban on foreigners transferring their ringgit denominated funds (for example in the stock market) abroad, a limit to the funds local travellers could take out of the country, and limits to overseas investments by local companies and individuals.

Today, the IMF itself has changed its position, saying that capital controls in certain situations are not only legitimate but may also be necessary.

It has partially recognised that unregulated capital flows can cause financial instability and economic damage.

In the case of Cyprus, analysts now conclude that its growth model was flawed because it was too reliant on a bloated financial sector, having become a haven for foreign savers, especially from Russia.

But a major factor in its recent crisis was that the country’s biggest banks invested in Greek government bonds.

In October 2011, a bailout package was arranged for Greece by the European Union and the IMF.

Part of the bailout terms was that holders of Greek government bonds would take a “haircut” or loss of about 50%.

This Greek debt restructuring meant a loss of 4bil (RM15.9bil) for banks in Cyprus, a huge amount in a country whose GNP is only 18bil (RM71.4bil).

Now, it is Cyprus’ turn to be reconfigured and re-created as part of a 10bil (RM39.7bil) bailout scheme. The two biggest banks, Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank are to be drastically restructured, with the latter to be closed.

The biggest innovation designed by the European Union and IMF creditors is that the bank depositors will have to take losses. Deposits less than 100,000 (RM396,000) are to be spared, after an original plan to also “tax” them by 6.75% was cancelled after a huge outcry and the fear of contagion, with bank runs in many European countries.

The final plan is for deposits over 100,000 (RM396,000) in the two banks to take losses not by the originally planned 9.9% but by much more.

The new European policy of getting bank depositors to take a big hit in bailouts of banks will have big ramifications for public confidence in banks.

The new perception is that money put as savings in banks is no longer safe.

The question remains: will the policymakers learn the real lessons from these crises?


GLOBALTRENDS BY MARTIN KHOR 

Related posts:
Financial crises a result of governance failures